Did you know your kids aren't yours? (Page 3)

Marriage or more importantly # of parents actively financialy supporting the family is part of the correlation as it directly impacts socioeconomic status.  Single parent households tend to be on the lower end of the spectrum due to the decreased earnings potential of 1 vs 2 parents.  You can argue that there are benefits to the fluidity of the state of marriage but it has been shown that women and children are most often poorer after a family split.  Now a lot of this data is was also collected over time and may be changing as custody and child support changes.

I did miss the race part.

The discussion about different families and what is best and so on is absolutely irrelevant to this thread. The viewpoint of the MSNBC commentator is that the family structure, whatever structure that might be (single parent, gay parents, hetro parents, loving, not loving) is an enemy of the goals of the progressive Statist.

It is very a Plato's Republic view of the role of families in society where ties to the family weaken bonds to community. Basically, get the parents out of the way so we (government/community) can indoctrinate all kids to be on the same page. And a society where all share in the same goals is a better society.  

"Plato's aim in devising the communal raising of children is to keep the city unified.

..the greatest good, he maintains, is that which binds the city together and makes it one; the greatest evil is that which tears it apart a city will be unified if its citizens feel pleasure and pain about the same things, and when no one makes a distinction between what belongs to him and what belongs to others"

Do you consider yourself a member of your community? Do you care about local issues, whatever they may be? Or are you an island unto yourself?

Individuals make up families. Families make up communities. You don't have one without the others.

Plato had a lot of ideas - some stick, many don't. I believe, for example, that when I see a dog, I am seeing a dog. Not the shadows on the walls of the cave of the ideal dog that exists in the ether outside my cave.

In fact I very involved in community issues. I think the piles of campaign signs for elections I've run safely put me into the community leader category. But your comments reflect that you agree with me and not with progressive philosophy when it comes to the role of families. I think that shows how radical her comments really are given you identify yourself on the left. 

Plato even admitted that his Republic wouldn't work. I don't know why progressives want to try to prove it.

My birthday is 8 months 3 weeks after my parents anniversary. Which category do I fall under?

I didn't have kids for a reason, and do not want to raise yours. Keep your kids of my lawn.

Yes they are yours, and yes it is mine.

Can my dog poop in your yard?

My take on the commentator was her very first comment about the fact that people always balk at the idea of providing more funding toward public education. 

Education funding was her point. Period. I don't think she has any personal desire to see the government take over or "indoctrinate" anyone's kids. 

My children will fight indoctrination.......just saying.

I think we need to fight algebra indoctrination. Have you ever tried to help your kid with their word problems? Total propaganda..

That's what I thought it meant too.   Poorly said by the lady in the commercial, yes, but that was my immediate assumption.

I.e.   I don't choose to vote down school referendums ONLY because I don't have kids in the system.   I see the value of services in my community, even if I don't plan to use them.

We have a neighborhood gang of kids that is around all the time.   We've fed, scolded and comforted them.  We shovel a path in our yard so they can take a shortcut to the bus.  I even had to help one little boy use our bathroom when his dad wasn't coming to open their door soon enough.   I don't turn them away because they aren't mine.   We are hoping to convince them to help with lawn maintenance in 10 years...

My kid says, "why do I need this, it's stupid?"....I say, "you don't, but it prepares you for marriage".

What do you think public education is.

Only if you take it with you.

Interesting, so having two parents in your life has zero bearing whatsoever in a child?  It's only about money.  Heck, if that's the case then we should just give every kid in the hood $100k and the problem will be solved.  Oh wait, that would be beyond ridiculous. 

I think you're reading into what I'm saying a little too much.  I'm not saying the degradation of the institution of marriage is the problem.  I'm saying that kids growing up in split or single parent households is the problem.  Marriage is simply the mechanism that our society uses that loosely means both parents are still living together with the kid.  You can have two room mates that have a kid and they get all the same benefits.

I'm not sure where you get the race thing either.  I did some races last summer, but I didn't talk about it in this thread.

Hmmmm, let me think.  You state there is a big decline in society and the family and associate that due to having children out of wedlock and broken families.  Then post a picture showing a line that black people have WAY over the national average of kids out of wedlock and white people are below the average...  I wonder who you think the decline of society can be attributed to...

If you are simply tying to show an increase of broken families and attribute the decline in society of it, wouldn't there just be ONE line showing the increase of children out of wedlock?  What's race got to do with it.  It's interesting that there isn't just one line, but two, based on race, compared to the national average...

It's an "interesting" combination of claims and data you show.

Wow, I googled a graph searching on "out of wedlock births" and it was the first one that came up.  You're trying to make it sound like I created the graph.  You two need to stop trying to make this a race thing because race is irrelevant.  If you insist though, yes Black children are growing up in single family homes at a much higher rate than other nationalities and I don't think there's any question they've been hurt the most which is kind of what I'm getting at.

I know we're already out in the weeds, and I was half trying to be funny with my initial post, but there's also a lot of truth to it.

LOVE THIS!

Wow indeed...  You post a graph identifying blacks and whites and the ratios of children out of wedlock and claim that's the reason of the decline of society and I tell you what I see in the graph YOU posted and I'M making it a race thing?  How does that work again?

I'm curious why if you say race is irrelevant, you post a graph that clearly makes a point of it?

In another life I bought drugs as an undercover Detective for a DEA task force.  I bought crack from poor black guys in the projects.  I bought meth from poor white guys in trailer parks.  Same exact game.  Economic standing being the common denominator.

If you think race makes a difference come ride with me........I'll cure you.  Same for family status.

It's all about money.

Exactly.  Socioeconomics has the bigger impact to crime (and types of crime) and single parent families, etc.  Doesn't matter if you are black or white.  To make it a black and white issue when it's ACTUALLY an economic standing issue is racism, IMO.

That's more of a socioeconomic symptom, not a race issue.  But since much of the poor IS black, of course the rates for them are going to be higher.  But being black is not the reason, being poor is.  That's why racisim is still such a problem.  It's not as overt, but deep down in the core of the way people think.  Too many attibute it to a race/skin color thing when it's a poverty thing.

My first wife (who was black), was able to point these things out to me.  Opened my eyes.  Racism isn't as overt as it used to be, but it's this kind of stuff that is still so prevelent.

It's like saying if someone plays on a basketball team, they are most likely going to be tall - true.  But if you are tall, doesn't mean you play basketball.

So if you say someone is poor (and with that comes the single parent families and crime), most likely they will be black.  But because you are black, doesn't mean you are poor/criminal or from a single family.

Skin color doesn't make you a bad parent or criminal, even if because of ECONOMIC reasons, certain ethnic groups have higher rates of it.

OH, for the record?  My ex wife's "nationality"?  is AMERICAN.  MOST black people's nationality is American.  Many probably have ancesters that lived in America LONG before a lot of white people.  If you are a citizen, your nationality is American.  That applies to minorites as well as white people.

As someone who grew up in a single parent household, I would suggest that you try to get a clue. You attitude is simplistic and inaccurate, to put it mildly. VERY mildly.

Look at the graph you posted.

Again, this is VERY simplistic. To begin with, as a stay at home dad, it seems that our, ah, earning "potential" has not been realized. And yet we manage fine.

And two parents working and earning minimum wage are not doing better then a single parent earning high wages.

I have seen plenty of single parents, earning very little, doing a great job with their kids. They CARE. And I have also seen families, with both parents making good money, and the kids leaving much to be desired.

Trying to use the number of parents as an excuse is good for a specific agenda, but based on experience, a feeble excuse, which has little to do with reality.